New ISP offers Kiwis a “global mode” to bypass geo-blocking

But companies like Hulu and Netflix ban such activity.

Those living in smaller markets like New Zealand might feel like second-class customers on the Web, as desirable services like Hulu and Netflix often exclude them at launch (and sometimes for years afterward). Miffed Kiwis now have one more option for avoiding such lockouts—a new ISP called "Fyx." The company, which launched last week, offers a “Global Mode which creates freedom for New Zealand Internet users that doesn’t exist elsewhere,” according to its website.

While that is fantastically vague, an interview with the Kiwi newspaper The Southland Times suggests that the mode targets foreign sites that have not become available yet in New Zealand, like Hulu and Netflix, and that use geo-fencing to keep people out.

The paper reported that Paul Brislen, the country’s Telecommunications Users Association chief executive, could save NZ$50 ($39) a month by using this service and that he was impressed by it. Fyx is the first New Zealand ISP to provide such circumvention tools automatically to its users, though users in New Zealand (and anywhere else) have long been able to pay for commercial VPNs and other tools to get around geo-blocking.

Fyx remains a bit cagey about what it’s doing to obfuscate IP traffic, saying in a tweet earlier this week: “A lot more than a VPN. Majority of traffic behaves as normal. Only different when required to be.”

"We all know that New Zealand is the best little country in the world," says Fyx on its website. "But sometimes being little means that we get passed over when toys are being handed out... So we decided to FYX the Internet by removing some of the barriers that were getting in the way of great choice."

"You may not either directly or through the use of any device, software…bypass…or circumvent any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices marked on the Content or any digital rights management mechanism, device, or other content protection or access control measure associated with the Content including geo-filtering mechanisms,” says Hulu.

Netflix is even more direct: “You may not circumvent, remove, alter, deactivate, degrade or thwart any of the content protections in the Netflix service.”

However, we've been unable to find any examples of Hulu, Netflix, or anyone else pursuing legal action against VPN users abroad.

Hulu and Netflix did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but we will update when we hear more.

UPDATE: Netflix spokesperson Joris Evers wrote to Ars, just referring us to another clause in the company's Terms of Use: "Geographic Limitation: You may instantly watch a movie or TV show through the Netflix service only in geographic locations where we offer our service. The content that may be available to watch will vary by geographic location. Netflix will use technologies to verify your geographic location."

I always chuckle when I hear the trade groups like the RIAA and MPAA whine about infringement. Yet, time and again you hear about people begging to hand over cash for content and being refused the option to purchase altogether.

Geographically-based licensing is ludicrously anachronistic today, yet it's still prominent in just about every form of media, including those that are primarily meant to be consumed electronically. The entire international licensing structure for movies, music, and television is based on the idea of restrictions that no longer exist--you don't have to print a bunch of DVDs of a TV show in order to bring that show to New Zealand, and so you don't need to sell a publishing house and a distributor a license to make that happen....and yet here we are. In spite of the fact that a Kiwi can type "www.netflix.com" into a browser just as easily as a USian, the Kiwi can't see the same content because it's not "licensed".

At this point, the entire system exists not to facilitate distribution, but rather to shuffle money around. If there were a physical product involved I could vaguely see the justification, and indeed I guess you can say that restricting the streaming rights to a piece of intellectual property in NZ safeguards the potential sale of physical copies of that intellectual property in NZ, but that's protecting the proverbial buggy-whip manufacturers.

Bypassing stupid and arbitrary restrictions is the right thing to do. Bravo to Fyx.

But it's not quite that simple. Take iPlayer, which is funded by UK TV license fees; it's geo-fenced for a reason. And ad-supported sites like Hulu don't et anything by showing US ads to Kiwis; it just costs them money in bandwidth. Still, your basic point stands; these companies need to find a better way of dealing with this stuff and of offering at least pure pay options to those in other markets.

I don't even bother any more. Whenever I hear about an online video/streaming site I already know it will be US only.

Pirate bay has it all in various qualities, sizes and languages. Media companies STILL don't seem to realise that THIS is what they are competing against. It's like flow of water--it will aways find the path of least resistance, and the same thing happens here. "This content is not available in your country". Well I beg to differ, it SURE IS AVAILABLE, just not on your GeoIP enhanced website, but it IS available. Things will not change until this starts getting into their little heads.

But it's not quite that simple. Take iPlayer, which is funded by UK TV license fees; it's geo-fenced for a reason. And ad-supported sites like Hulu don't et anything by showing US ads to Kiwis; it just costs them money in bandwidth. Still, your basic point stands; these companies need to find a better way of dealing with this stuff and of offering at least pure pay options to those in other markets.

If services can wall off access based upon geolocation, they can serve ads based upon the same idea. This goes back to what people have been complaining about WRT updating outdated business models or, moving aside for those willing to do so and serve those of us not trying to cling to the practices of the early 20th century.

But it's not quite that simple. Take iPlayer, which is funded by UK TV license fees; it's geo-fenced for a reason. And ad-supported sites like Hulu don't et anything by showing US ads to Kiwis; it just costs them money in bandwidth. Still, your basic point stands; these companies need to find a better way of dealing with this stuff and of offering at least pure pay options to those in other markets.

The marginal cost of additional international viewers--who are likely getting the content streamed to them from a CDN anyway--is almost certainly very low, so the IP holder isn't incurring significant additional costs from not showing ads (or more correctly by not receiving compensation for those ads shown internationally). The objection can be made that the international viewers are gaining utility from viewing the content without providing some form of remuneration to the IP holder, but you know what? That's an opportunity.

Put another way, it's almost certain that someone willing to jump through hoops to watch Netflix internationally would be willing to pay money to avoid jumping through those hoops. An IP holder not hopelessly mired in antiquated ideas about geographic boundaries in the digital space should be able to make more money.

" You may instantly watch a movie or TV show through the Netflix service only in geographic locations where we offer our service. The content that may be available to watch will vary by geographic location. Netflix will use technologies to verify your geographic location."

" You may instantly watch a movie or TV show through the Netflix service only in geographic locations where we offer our service. The content that may be available to watch will vary by geographic location. Netflix will use technologies to verify your geographic location."

I'm pretty sure Netflix and Hulu want your money but the problem is that it is illegal for them to distribute media outside of their licensed area. Also I'll bet that they feel that the cost of buying the rights to stream the content in your area is not worth the additional revenue that they may take in. Most likely they have to use geolocking as a condition of their license contracts and to provide legal cover from any potential criminal/civil litigation from the content owners if the material is viewed in a different market area.

I understand your frustration but it should be focused at the content owners not so much at the distribution network.

No I can clearly understand the content creators. Telling half the world "Keep your money, we don't want it" is a brilliant plan.

Sure I could use a proxy/VPN to get hulu and so on - but then I'm already breaking the law anyhow by doing that and it's additionally quite inconvenient.. Well maybe another decade or so before they figure out how to combat piracy effectively (maybe a 3rd unskippable FBI warning before playing a legally bought DVD?)

The Iplayer case is interesting. If a UK resident comes to canada( for example) on vacationwith their IPAD/computer/whatever they are 99% likely to be paying the BBC licence fee but still can't use Iplayer.

I as a brit, would be happy to pay that license fee even though I don't live in the UK to be able to use Iplayer without a VPN.

But it's not quite that simple. Take iPlayer, which is funded by UK TV license fees; it's geo-fenced for a reason. And ad-supported sites like Hulu don't et anything by showing US ads to Kiwis; it just costs them money in bandwidth. Still, your basic point stands; these companies need to find a better way of dealing with this stuff and of offering at least pure pay options to those in other markets.

The marginal cost of additional international viewers--who are likely getting the content streamed to them from a CDN anyway--is almost certainly very low, so the IP holder isn't incurring significant additional costs from not showing ads (or more correctly by not receiving compensation for those ads shown internationally). The objection can be made that the international viewers are gaining utility from viewing the content without providing some form of remuneration to the IP holder, but you know what? That's an opportunity.

Put another way, it's almost certain that someone willing to jump through hoops to watch Netflix internationally would be willing to pay money to avoid jumping through those hoops. An IP holder not hopelessly mired in antiquated ideas about geographic boundaries in the digital space should be able to make more money.

I agree, but the reality of the current situation is bound up in contracts and licenses and so forth that make such immediate changes more difficult than people often give these companies credit for.

"Globalization" doesn't just mean shipping menial jobs off to third-world countries without labor restrictions; it also means we are rapidly coming together into one superculture. And you can only prevent that for so long. Much like censorship, the net interprets region-locking as damage and routes around it.

But it's not quite that simple. Take iPlayer, which is funded by UK TV license fees; it's geo-fenced for a reason. And ad-supported sites like Hulu don't et anything by showing US ads to Kiwis; it just costs them money in bandwidth. Still, your basic point stands; these companies need to find a better way of dealing with this stuff and of offering at least pure pay options to those in other markets.

The marginal cost of additional international viewers--who are likely getting the content streamed to them from a CDN anyway--is almost certainly very low, so the IP holder isn't incurring significant additional costs from not showing ads (or more correctly by not receiving compensation for those ads shown internationally). The objection can be made that the international viewers are gaining utility from viewing the content without providing some form of remuneration to the IP holder, but you know what? That's an opportunity.

Put another way, it's almost certain that someone willing to jump through hoops to watch Netflix internationally would be willing to pay money to avoid jumping through those hoops. An IP holder not hopelessly mired in antiquated ideas about geographic boundaries in the digital space should be able to make more money.

I agree, but the reality of the current situation is bound up in contracts and licenses and so forth that make such immediate changes more difficult than people often give these companies credit for.

Yes but at the same time, content owners use those contracts and licenses as a crutch to keep their old models of distribution alive and all it's middlemen. They don't want to change. And they are big enough that they can prevent distributors from forcing change on them. Netflix doesn't want to play, fine, we'll with hold content from them. Hulu however is owned by companies who also own the IP so they should have the least issues is setting up a way users outside a region to pay for the content. Of course I'm sure they'll claim otherwise.

So what would happen if someone that can access Netflix from their normal country of residence goes on vacation to New Zealand? Will they be able to access Netflix on their iDevice or laptop while on vacation?

I have a feeling all of these big content companies would make a lot more money if they would just let people buy their stuff when and where they wanted to. (i know, beating a dead horse)

So what would happen if someone that can access Netflix from their normal country of residence goes on vacation to New Zealand? Will they be able to access Netflix on their iDevice or laptop while on vacation?

I wouldn't be surprised if they found that netflix blocks attempts to access anything from outside the relevant IP address ranges for the US. Geolocation isn't difficult, after all.

Personally, I haven't tried to see what happens. I haven't been back home in the (short) time I've been a netflix subscriber. However, a quick google suggests that this is indeed what they do - just about everything I saw talks about how to circumvent their restriction via proxies and other similar methods.

As always, piracy is just so much simpler. The oatmeal comic above sums it up far more succinctly than I ever could.

I agree, but the reality of the current situation is bound up in contracts and licenses and so forth that make such immediate changes more difficult than people often give these companies credit for.

Those contracts are the problem of the people wanting to collect money. If they're not willing to deal with their own supply issues, they deserve no sympathy when they fail to collect money.

In the meantime, the only competition that the old-school content oligopolies respond to is piracy. ITunes (or any other digital delivery service) would never have gotten the record companies' blessing if it weren't that the alternative was widespread music piracy. Sane digital video delivery will never happen unless movie studios and television stations don't have video piracy to drive them to the bargaining table.

So what would happen if someone that can access Netflix from their normal country of residence goes on vacation to New Zealand? Will they be able to access Netflix on their iDevice or laptop while on vacation?

I wouldn't be surprised if they found that netflix blocks attempts to access anything from outside the relevant IP address ranges for the US. Geolocation isn't difficult, after all.

Personally, I haven't tried to see what happens. I haven't been back home in the (short) time I've been a netflix subscriber. However, a quick google suggests that this is indeed what they do - just about everything I saw talks about how to circumvent their restriction via proxies and other similar methods.

As always, piracy is just so much simpler. The oatmeal comic above sums it up far more succinctly than I ever could.

Right, it doesn't work for a current subscriber in a blocked region. Take it from someone living in Japan with an active Hulu and Netflix account. It's not hard to route around though, and I still use them for what they have available. For everything else, there's demonoid.

So what would happen if someone that can access Netflix from their normal country of residence goes on vacation to New Zealand? Will they be able to access Netflix on their iDevice or laptop while on vacation?

I live in the US. I had HBO Go on my iPad. I took it to New Zealand to work on earthquake stuff for a few months. It didn't work over there.

Bandwidth-capped internet plans seemed to be the norm there, which has got to be a huge impediment to the streaming industry. But it would've been nice to have the option.

Just last week I was talking to a friend in Panama that splits his time between there and the US. He has a Roku box, Netflix, Amazon Prime, some MLB.tv package and a number of other paid services like that bought and paid for in the US with a US credit card. But he couldn't access the content when he was out of the country. But apparently very recently, his ISP started *automatically* doing some kind of magic that would make all of this stuff work as if it were in the US. I have no idea if they are simply doing tunneling to their US datacenter on a grand scale or announcing a block that's somehow geo-tagged to the US, but I thought it was a pretty cool service for an ISP to offer (especially when said ISP caters to expats).

I can see the small ISP in Panama flying under the radar. As for these NZ folks, I'm sure there will be swift retribution from someone in the content chain.

I don't think Netflix / Hulu actually care, except officially. They're still getting the money for the subscription somehow. It's the content providers that are tying them down. Hulu / Netflix might have to pay a little more in bandwidth to their upstream provider, but after that the cost isn't theirs. I'm fairly certain that Netflix / Hulu don't actively hunt people down and do just the minimum to keep MPAA lawyers happy.

I live in Australia and I have Netflix, it's not that hard to do (and it'll work in any country). There are services you can use (either VPN or DNS). Not sure if I'm allowed to say who I use but "unblock us" and "entropay" will help you on your way in google.

The trick is the US-based credit card or address (again, I just pick someone at random out of the phone book). Some sites do not accept virtual credit cards; there's definitely a movement to tighten up on that.

Setting up a US-based iTunes account is useful, too, if you have an AppleTV. US movie rentals are a) cheaper, and b) more current.

I imagine the NZ ISP is just doing some silent proxying/DNS monkeying for specific addresses -- you type in www.netflix.com and it'll silently jimmy your connection to surface from a US-based proxy server, busting the geo-location.